Preamble

The House after the Adjournment on Thursday, 22nd August for the Summer Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Bolton, in the room of Sir John Haslam, deceased [Captain Margesson].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CLYDE LIGHTHOUSES CONSOLIDATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any way by which I can ask a question? This is the Clyde Lighthouses Consolidation Order Confirmation Bill. What does it mean?

Mr. Speaker: This Bill has been through all its stages. This is the Third Reading, and the hon. Member ought to have asked his question sooner.

Mr. Kirkwood: I object.
Third Reading deferred till Tuesday, 17th September.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of persons at

present in receipt of pensions in respect of service in the South African War?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Miss Wilkinson): If, as I presume, the hon. Member has in mind pensions granted for death and disablement, there are approximately 4,900 disablement and 650 widows' pensions in payment in respect of service in wars prior to the Great War. The majority of these would undoubtedly be cases arising out of the South African War, but the records of the Department do not enable me to give the precise number.

Mr. Davies: Can the hon. Lady say whether the pensions that are paid in respect of the South African War have been brought up to the scale of the pensions in respect of the last war and of this war?

Miss Wilkinson: The pre-war pensions, that is, those prior to what we call the 'Great War, were brought up to the level of the 1919 to 1921 period, and have not been changed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make on the acceptance or rejection in India of the Viceroy's proposals to Indian leaders?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Working Committee of the Congress has passed a resolution rejecting the Viceroy's proposals. The Working Committee of the Moslem League has passed a resolution welcoming the Viceroy's statement but requesting recon-


sideration and further information as regards the proposed expansion of the Executive Council. The views of other parties have not yet been made known.

Mr. Cary: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any other proposals are under consideration?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir; the proposals stand.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that Congress is the important and deciding factor, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider a new approach to this question?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet been able to get into touch with the Channel Islands; and can he now give any information as to the fate of the deserted people?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid I am not yet able to add anything to my replies to previous Questions on this subject.

Mr. Ammon: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the food situation on the Islands?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps I can see the hon. Member afterwards.

Mr. Mender: In view of the failure of the Home Secretary to obtain any information through the channels of the Red Cross, will he not consider asking some neutral consul to find out what is happening in the Islands?

Sir J. Anderson: Other channels are being explored.

Mr. McGovern: Could not the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit there himself?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID WARDENS.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that

an American-born woman, who acquired British nationality by marriage 18 years ago, has been dismissed from her post as a senior air-raid warden by the local council of a Hertfordshire town, who informed her that they felt it imperative to eliminate from Civil Defence Services all persons of alien origin; and, in view of the fact that American pilots are now being accepted in the Royal Air Force, will he issue instructions to local authorities discouraging such dismissals from Defence Services of friendly Americans on technical grounds, particularly those who have subsequently acquired British nationality?

Sir J. Anderson: My attention has been drawn to this case. The responsibility for deciding whether any particular individual is suitable to act as a member of one of the public Civil Defence Services rests with the local authority concerned. I have suggested to local authorities that they should take steps to satisfy themselves as to the reliability of individual members of these Services; but no instruction issued by my Department would justify the dismissal of a British subject from those Services solely on the ground that he or she was of alien origin.

Mr. Pearson: asked the home Secretary whether it is intended to make a boot allowance to air-raid precautions wardens on the same lines as is made to the special police and observation post members, especially as many of these men are unemployed?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. It is not proposed to make a boot allowance to wardens.

Mr. Pearson: Is there any reason why the air-raid wardens should be treated differently from people in the same Services?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir; the treatment is similar in regard to the Civil Defence Services properly so-called. The police and observation post members, to whom reference is made in the Question, are under entirely different terms of service.

Mr. Thorne: If the local authorities made an allowance, would that allowance rank for grant?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir; it would not rank for grant.

RIVER CRAFT, EAST NORFOLK.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the recent order compelling the immobilisation of all small craft in Eastern England has been taken in East Norfolk to require the laying up of small craft on the Broads and adjacent rivers and the stopping of all facilities for recreation and fishing in this district, thus causing serious hardship to many persons whose livelihood depends on the use of such facilities; and whether he will make it clear that there is no objection to small sailing and rowing craft being used for short periods for these or other innocent purposes provided that such craft are kept strictly immobilised when not in use?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the direction issued by the Regional Commissioner in July. That direction was issued after consultation with the Service authorities and was based on military requirements. It does not apply to boats regularly used for trading or essential services or by professional fishermen.

"ROMA" (CLUB).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary the result of the police surveillance of the Fascist Club, "Roma"?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The premises of this club were recently visited by the police in the execution of a search warrant: and as a result of the search and of various inquiries made by the police about the membership of the club, no grounds can be found for the suggestion that it is a centre for Fascist activities.

FASCISTS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been reached yet in regard to sending British Fascist sympathisers, interned under Regulation 18B, to Canada or Australia?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 22nd August to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now two months since the Government said they were considering this matter; and does it mean that any decision in this respect has been indefinitely postponed?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware that the Government have said more than that note would be taken of a certain suggestion.

Mr. Strauss: Does it mean that it is not the intention of the Government to send these Fascists abroad?

Sir J. Anderson: The answer means that, if it were the intention to take such a step, the matter would have been brought to the notice of this House, and as that course has not been taken, hon. Members can draw their own conclusion.

INTERNEES.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether he has had the categories of enemy aliens to be released translated into German; and is there any form available in English and German on which applications for release can be made?

Sir J. Anderson: Experience shows that the internees have no difficulty in understanding the White Paper. The few who cannot read English, if not helped by other internees, can obtain help from the official interpreters and the liaison officers in the camps. The question of a form of application for release has been considered, but there would have to be so many different forms to fit the different classes of cases that this method would not be helpful to the internees.

Sir R. Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of wives and relatives of internees who are outside the camps and who also want to know these things; and does he realise that they write to Members of Parliament, who would be very much assisted if there was a translation sent to them?

Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to consider any suggestion of that kind, but I should have thought that most of the people are already in touch with refugee organisations, which are very willing to give all assistance possible.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the need is felt so great that some of us have to issue our own printed form, and that many thousands have applied for them; and would it not be far better to have an official form?

Sir J. Anderson: I am sorry to hear that, but if the matter had been brought to my notice earlier, perhaps it could have been done.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some camps there are no copies of the White Paper available even in English for the internees, and will he look into that matter?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir; and perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether Franz H. Weinberger was given facilities for attending at the American consulate in time for him to leave the country on the boat on which passage had been booked and all arrangements made, at the beginning of this month?

Sir J. Anderson: I have ascertained that this boy has obtained his visa for the United States and that an exit permit has been granted, and he is now awaiting the sailing of his ship.

RAID DAMAGE, DWELLING-HOUSES.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Health what action local authorities are responsible for taking immediately after bombing raids in their districts, as regards damage to dwelling-houses and as regards assistance to persons affected by the same?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Local authorities are responsible for carrying out repairs immediately necessary to avoid danger to health in the case both of houses on their own estates and houses of which the owners are unable or unwilling to take action. Responsibility for immediate assistance to persons rendered homeless rests with the public assistance authorities, who have made arrangements which include the provision of food and shelter for a short period, and, where necessary, temporary billeting. Where houses have been destroyed outright or are too badly damaged to be repairable and the families find it difficult to obtain accommodation, local authorities have been given special powers to take possession of houses or other buildings which can be made suitable for housing, and to let them at reasonable rents.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask by what method one can quickly ascertain whether

an owner of a house is willing to put it in repair or not?

Mr. MacDonald: I think the normal method is that officials of a local authority visit the spot where there are damaged houses as soon as possible after the incident, make appropriate inquiries, and so find out very swiftly whether an owner is ready to do repairs or not. I have been to a good many of these places myself, and I am satisfied that generally this is working very satisfactorily indeed, but if there were individual cases of complaint, I should be glad to bring them to the notice of the local authority.

Mr. Thorne: If a local authority carries out that suggestion, will that rank for grant?

Mr. MacDonald: The expenses of these repairs are charged on the owner of the property and regarded as a loan on which interest is not charged during the war and in regard to which no payment is required during the war. The whole matter comes up after the war.

Mr. Thorne: What about people who lose their furniture and effects?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Are public assistance authorities limited in the amount of expenditure with regard to this question, and can they make any monetary grant?

Mr. MacDonald: There is no limit to the expenses which local authorities can incur. The Government give assistance with regard to the raising of loans in order to carry out these repairs. With regard to the last Supplementary Question asked by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), where furniture has been destroyed, then the Assistance Board can make grants up to a certain figure for replacement in cases where the family income is below a certain level.

Mr. Simmonds: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists where the public have been evicted from their houses because of time bombs or unexploded bombs? Will he see that these people are given shelter by the local authority?

Mr. MacDonald: In these circumstances it is certainly the responsibility of the local authority that these people should be looked after in a similar way to people whose houses have been damaged or


destroyed. Again, if hon. Members will let me know of cases where that is not being done, I will look into them at once.

MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY (RETIRED INDIAN CIVIL SER VANTS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary how many retired Indian civil servants are at present employed in the air-raid precautions section of the Ministry; and which of them are paid £500 a year or more?

Sir J. Anderson: There are in the Ministry of Home Security 38 persons who have retired from civil employment under Government in India. Thirty-one of these are in receipt of a salary of £500 a year or more.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Home Secretary say how many of these Bengali tigers have special qualifications for air-raid precautions work?

Hon. Members: Order.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with the Ministry of Information with a view to making special inquiries in selected districts of Great Britain with regard to the examinations which aged people have to undergo before the Assistance Board Appeal Tribunals when applying for supplementary old age pensions, in order to test the public feeling which has been aroused throughout the country about the hardships suffered by these old people and the ordeals they have to undergo when applying for more money to keep body and soul together?

Mr. M. MacDonald: More than 1,000,000 persons have received supplementary pensions, and I cannot agree that applicants have to suffer hardships or ordeals in the examination of their claims. I do not think therefore that there is a need for the special inquiries which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Quibell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some instances the officers making the inquiries ask the applicants to produce even their laundry bills, and also their rates bills and their rent book, that in many cases they ask the

amount of wages earned by the son-in-law, and that if they refuse the information the supplementary pension is refused? It is a scandal.

Mr. MacDonald: Parliament has decided that a certain investigation should be made. The only question that arises is whether these inquiries have been carried out properly and impartially. If hon. Members will bring to my attention any cases where harshness has been used or where improper inquiries have been made, I will look into them.

Mr. Quibell: There are thousands of them.

Mr. Buchanan: While admitting that Parliament decided upon the investigation, is not the Minister prepared, after months of its operation, to have an inquiry to see whether the intention of Parliament is being carried out in the proper spirit? Will he reconsider his decision and have an inquiry made?

Mr. MacDonald: The authorised inquiry is being made. Many hon. Members have sent me cases from their constituents, and having looked into all those, I am not satisfied that the number involved is so great that a general inquiry is required. If hon. Members have particulars of other cases and will bring them to my notice, I will look into them.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that the method of doing this is not to overburden any Cabinet Minister but to take up these cases locally? Will he not reconsider the matter and set up a neutral body to re-examine the position, as there is intense feeling in the country?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that there are about four times as many people getting assistance as need it?

Mr. Gallecher: Is not the Minister aware that there are bitter complaints being made about the questions being asked and the very small amounts allowed to deserving old age pensioners? Will he not make an inquiry into how these Regulations are operating?

Mr. MacDonald: The opportunity which I have had of looking at this matter is of looking at the various individual cases, but if hon. Members felt that a whole category of cases are not being treated in accordance with the desires of Parliament, I would certainly like to consider those


cases with a view to seeing whether some inquiry by a Board or some other authority was required. I have not so far had such categories brought to my notice.

Mr. Maxton: When the Minister asks us to send him cases, does that mean that he has taken over the Scottish aspect of this question as well as his own, or must Scottish Members send their cases to the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. MacDonald: Cases coming within the purview of the Secretary of State for Scotland should go to him and not to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DOLLAR SECURITIES.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when negotiating the sale of dollar securities, the Treasury are guided solely by the nominal market quotation for a limited number of shares, or whether they seek advice as to the real value attaching to the assets concerned?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The actual selling of securities is handled by a representative in New York of the Treasury, who keeps in the closest possible touch with the market and with expert opinion and is, therefore, in a position to advise the Treasury on all questions regarding the selling of securities.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask whether in all cases a person who has given up dollar securities will receive in payment approximately the same sum as has been received by the Treasury on account of their sale?

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that.

AIR-RAID WARNING.

Mr. Speaker: An air-raid warning has been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I understand that an arrangement has been made whereby the Air Ministry will inform the House when the raid is more imminent. In view of that fact, I think the House can continue its proceedings now.

Later—

Captain Markham: On a point of Order. With regard to air raids, I understand that the public galleries have been cleared. May that not be reconsidered

in view of the fact that many of those attending Parliament in these days would much prefer to carry on in the Gallery rather than be shepherded to shelters?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been very carefully considered, and we came to the conclusion that it would be best in the interests of the visitors themselves that, on a red raid warning being given, the public galleries should be closed.

Mr. Markham: Could it not be revised and left to the discretion of the visitors?

Mr. Denville: You do not close the theatres of the country and turn the audiences out.

INTEREST-FREE LOANS (BANKS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many banks have subscribed to the interest-free loan; and the total amount of those subscriptions?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 23rd July.

Mr. Stokes: As the banks create all the currency and the Government now control the banks, is it not possible for the Chancellor to give instructions to the banks that they should subscribe liberally to these loans?

Sir K. Wood: I must leave that to the corporations and individuals themselves.

BANK OF ENGLAND (DIRECTORS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole or any part of the £30,000 a year increase in salaries and pensions to the seven active Directors of the Bank of England will be provided by the issue department before calculation of its profits or by the banking department of that institution?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question of 20th August. The profits of the issue department are calculated after allowing for all necessary current expenses, including such proportion of the general overhead charges of the Bank as may reasonably be attributed to that department, and the amount allowed as an expense of the issue department in respect of Directors' remuneration is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total costs of that department.

Mr. Stokes: The Chancellor has not answered my Question. Will he tell me whether this sum is to be voted from the issue department or the banking department, and will he say whether he himself really considers that this extra payment to Directors is justified, and, if so, on what grounds?

Sir K. Wood: That is not a matter for me. So far as the other part of the Question is concerned, I hope the hon. Member will study my reply. I think he will find I have answered the Question on the Paper. So far as my powers in connection with taxation are concerned, they will be fully exercised.

Mr. Woodburn: Is a bank any more than any other firm entitled to issue great sums to its directors so as to escape Excess Profits Tax?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

BANK OVERDRAFTS (SMALL DEPOSITORS).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a moratorium now to relieve, in particular, the overdrafts of small depositors which are being called in by the banks?

Sir K. Wood: On the question of a moratorium, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave him on 25th June, 1940. I have made careful inquiries into the suggestion that the banks are calling in the overdrafts of small customers, and as a result I am satisfied that customers who are in difficulties through no fault of their own are receiving sympathetic consideration by the banks.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Did not the absence of a moratorium on the outbreak of the war force small and other investors to liquidate their securities, which were forced on to the market and bought up by waiting dealers at a grave decrease in value, to be sold later at a high price, while the original owners were ruined? Can we have an inquiry into this?

Sir K. Wood: I will, if my hon. Friend has any particular case.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May we have a Debate and a deputation?

Sir K. Wood: Let us have the papers first.

Mr. De la Bère: Banks should not be allowed to liquidate securities as they are doing. Have they not done this at uneconomic prices, which has caused great distress, and why has there not been some finished thought? There has been too much unfinished thought.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will make a contribution by sending me some of the cases.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will have a word with me afterwards.

WAR SAVINGS (DETERMINATION OF NEEDS) BILL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present position with regard to the War Savings (Determination of Needs) Bill; and whether consideration has been given to the inclusion of allowances made by public assistance committees?

Sir K. Wood: This matter is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make a statement at present. The reply given to my hon. Friend's Question on 22nd August was the result of the consideration given to the point raised in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Mander: Is not the Chancellor aware that this point was raised by the Leader of the Liberal party during the original discussion? Will he consult with the Secretary of State for Air?

Sir K. Wood: I am glad to consult with anybody who can give me any assistance.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (CASUALTIES, ANNOUNCEMENT).

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the real meaning of the regular official announcement to the effect that when a British plane is lost the pilot was saved; and whether this statement includes the rest of the occupants of any machine concerned?

Mr. Boulton (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Reference in an official statement to the pilot of an aircraft being saved normally implies that the aircraft was a single-seater fighter. With other types of aircraft, reference is


made, when appropriate, to members of the crew.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in actual fact there is not any reference made to other members of the crew? At least I personally have not seen it. The only reference is to the pilot.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (ROOTES SECURITIES, LIMITED).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he has considered a detailed statement from the shop stewards' committee of Rootes Securities, Limited, reflecting seriously on the organisation of production in which the suggestion is made that an official inquiry should be made into the conditions prevailing in the factory; and what steps does he propose to take?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir. I have myself read the statement referred to. On 17th and 21st June, the manager of the factory in question held long discussions with representatives of the workmen. I have read the accounts of these meetings and am satisfied that all the substantial points raised by the workmen which could be met were met. The output from this factory is satisfactory, and any further official inquiry unnecessary.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the shop stewards and workers in the factory are not satisfied that the output is what it could be or that the organisation of the factory is what it should be, and will not the Minister take steps to have an inquiry of some kind made so as to make absolutely certain whether the workers or the management are right?

Colonel Llewellin: We sent a representative of the Ministry to the factory, and the resident managing director came down to the Ministry. There is, it is true, some shortage in the supply of raw material, but an endeavour is being made to bring that up to date as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Did you not have any workers down at the Ministry?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

MOTOR LIFEBOATS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Shipping the progress made in the provision of motor lifeboats to vessels of the merchant navy?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): Yes, Sir. Motor lifeboats are being fitted on all merchant ships of 500 tons gross or over under construction on Government account, and I am advised that, of the ships now under construction for private shipowners, about one-third are being so fitted.

Mr. Adams: What is the position with regard to second-hand tonnage?

Mr. Cross: Owing to shortage of supply and labour in general, it is not possible to do more than I have already described in my answer.

NAVAL GUNLAYERS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Shipping whether steps are being taken to man the guns of merchant vessels when in our ports by naval ratings and not by the customarily overworked ship's personnel?

Mr. Cross: Yes, Sir. This is being done as far as possible. There is one naval gunlayer on each ship, and a second gun-layer is provided where possible, but my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informs me that the demands on the Royal Navy at the present time make it impossible for him to provide complete guns' crews for merchant ships in port.

Commander Marsden: Is it not the case that the present arrangements made with the consent of all parties on the national Maritime Board in the Tyne area have been most loyally and efficiently carried out?

Mr. Cross: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that and I recognise the fine work done by the crews in manning their guns.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister call for the opinion of masters of vessels as to the effect on ships personnel of excessive hours of labour?

Mr. Cross: I have obtained very full information on the point and I do not think they are excessive hours of


work. I have made the best arrangements possible in the circumstances and no man is called upon to work the guns two nights in succession. If it should occur that they have to man the guns on successive nights substantial payment would be made.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now make a statement relative to the position of the coal trade generally; and with particular reference to the export areas of the coalfields?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I hope, if time permits, and if it is the wish of the House, to make a statement on the lines suggested on the Motion for the Adjournment to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

POULTRY FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De Ia Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why no suitable plan was thought out 18 months ago to meet, in the event of war, an inevitable shortage of European and Asiatic imported eggs by importing increased supplies of feeding-stuffs, and, with them, increasing home poultry breeding?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): I cannot accept the suggestion that 18 months ago a shortage of European eggs should have been regarded as inevitable, and there has been no shortage of Asiatic eggs, imports of which have increased since the outbreak of war.

Mr. De la Bère: I wish only to prevent a recurrence of this. Will my hon. Friend use every endeavour to see that feeding-stuffs are available for small poultry keepers? Is he aware that it takes more than an air raid to put me off this subject?

Mr. Boothby: I am well aware of that.

TEA AND SUGAR RATIONS (RAILWAY WORKERS).

Mr. Watkins (for Mr. J. Henderson): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the special hardship imposed upon those railway employés who are compelled to lodge away from home by

the small rations of tea and sugar allowed; and if he will, in view of the special circumstances, consider the advisability of increasing the rations of these commodities?

Mr. Boothby: Railway employés receive the same rations of tea and sugar as any other classes of the community, and my Noble Friend is unable in present circumstances to sanction an increase. The Food Control Committees are, however, authorised to issue special permits for the purchase of tea for industrial, business and clerical workers, for consumption during their working hours, in cases where they cannot obtain tea from a registered canteen. I realise that special problems arise in regard to the provision of rationed commodities to certain classes of railway employés, and I am in consultation with the Minister of Transport in an endeavour to find a solution of those problems.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the fact that there is no canteen in a coal-mine and that the collier who takes down one bottle with him cannot get any more; and will he not arrange for those men to get more tea?

Mr. Speaker: The Question refers to railway workers and not to coal miners.

Mr. John Morgan: Will these special facilities for tea apply also to mobile units of men working at the ploughing-up campaign a long distance from their homes?

IMMINENCE OF AIR RAID (SUSPENSION OF SITTING)

Mr. Speaker: I am informed that an air raid is now considered to be imminent, and I will accordingly suspend the Sitting.

On resuming, after an interval of 35 minutes—

Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that when I suspended the Sitting, it was on the receipt of a message from the Fighter Command that an air raid was imminent. Since then I have received a further message that the immediate danger is passed, but the House must remember that the red warning is still in operation, and we are still on the alert. I have given orders that strangers should be readmitted to the Gallery. The House will also remember that when I suspended the Sitting at 20 minutes past three o'clock


we had not finished Questions, and on the present occasion I propose that we shall continue Questions for a further 25 minutes.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of what has happened this afternoon, may I ask whether our procedure in this respect cannot be revised? This is not exactly a good advertisement for the House of Commons. We cannot hope to make successful appeals to factory workers to carry on their work during air raids, if the House of Commons itself is constantly to adjourn on receipt of air-raid warnings. I do not know what is the correct procedure to follow to have this matter reconsidered, and whether it rests with you, Mr. Speaker, or with the Prime Minister, but I earnestly trust that the whole system will be revised.

Mr. Speaker: When the Prime Minister makes a statement later, I understand that he intends to refer to this matter, and perhaps the House will await that statement.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. Frankel: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what arrangements have been made with respect to the staff of the Refreshment Department during the coming weeks, when the sittings of the House will be intermittent; how many of the staff, apart from the few who are on full pay all the year round, are being dismissed; how many are retained during Recesses on half-pay; whether those on half-pay are expected to hold themselves ready for service without any opportunity of taking other employment; whether there is any arrangements for holidays with pay; whether, in the existing exceptional circumstances, he will consider maintaining a nucleus on adequate wages; and how it is proposed to ensure an efficient staff on the days when the House meets during the customary Summer Recess?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The Kitchen Committee found it necessary to rearrange the staff duties in view of the intermittent Sittings of the House, and this involved a reduction in the number of employés. 29 members of the staff were

engaged for the Session only, and their employment came to an end on Thursday, 22nd August, but the Committee were assured by the Employment Exchange that there would be no difficulty in finding work for them. In addition to the nine permanent members of the staff, 24 were retained on full pay for two weeks, and afterwards on half pay, and 16 members were offered half pay for the whole of the Recess. All members of the staff are at liberty to take up other employment. Holidays with pay were given to all members of the permanent and retained staff, and the Kitchen Committee have arranged to maintain an efficient service, at adequate wages, on those days when the House meets.

Mr. Frankel: In view of the fact that many of the employés during intervals in the Sittings of the House are liable to be called on at short notice and are therefore unable to take other employment, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that they are dealt with properly under this scheme?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I wish to assure the hon. Member that the Kitchen Committee made its decision with a full knowledge of all the facts and in an endeavour to cause as little hardship as possible, and at the same time to show some regard to the Treasury.

Mr. Hicks: I understand from the hon. Gentleman's reply that some members of the staff are allowed to go on half pay. Do I understand that they can obtain other employment and still have the half-pay?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: They can take the half pay and take other employment as well.

Mr. McGovern: Was the decision of the Kitchen Committee unanimous?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Are adequate measures taken to enable members of the staff to make representations to the Kitchen Committee?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Yes, Sir, the Members of the Kitchen Committee prefer that members of the staff should make representations or complaints to the Committee.

AIR RAIDS (REPRISALS).

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to make the whole civil population of Germany realise the peril in which it is placed by the action of the German air force in bombing and machine-gunning purely residential areas in this country?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd July last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

Sir A. Somerville: Is it not possible to take more direct steps to protect our own women and children? For instance, if residential areas are machine-gunned and bombed here, is it not possible, after giving due warning so as to allow of the evacuation of the German women and children concerned, to wipe out corresponding residential areas in Germany?

Mr. Gerro Jones: What possible object can be gained by throwing into so much prominence, in perspective, the dangers which the civil population incur; and would it not be better to concentrate on the smallness of those dangers in comparison with the dangers run by the Fighting Services?

Mr. Attlee: I think those points are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CONTRACTS (ALLEGATIONS).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report on the serious allegations of waste and extravagance and other irregularities preferred by Major Evans, Major Reid Kellett, D.S.O., M.C., and Mr. W. H. E. Carr, in connection with War Office works; and can he now make any further statement on these allegations, and the further steps he proposes to take in order that these allegations may, in the public interest, be substantiated or refuted?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): The allegations by Major Reid Kellett and Mr. Carr were the subject of two special investigations conducted by my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) and the Treasury Solicitor respectively. As a result of these investigations, it was decided that there was no reason for any further inquiry. My hon. Friend may remember that, in a letter to the then Secretary of State, he himself concurred in this decision. I am sending him a copy of the letter in question. As regards the allegations by Major Evans, these have been carefully examined, and, as a result, I am satisfied that no prima facie case exists which would justify further inquiry. I have written to my hon. Friend, enclosing the results of these inquiries, and I am hopeful that, when he has perused them, he will concur in the view which I have just expressed.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that letter was written I have been given to understand that no witnesses were allowed at the inquiry; and as these allegations are so serious, may I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend that a special inquiry should be held, at which these three gentlemen could be heard and could produce their witnesses?

Mr. Law: In the case of the inquiry held by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle), it is, I think, true that these witnesses were not present, but my hon. Friend should not take it that the officer in question had not every opportunity of putting his case. I would point out that this inquiry was not one which invoked the whole machinery of the law. Its purpose was to discover whether or not it was necessary to invoke that machinery, and it was quite clear from the evidence that that was not necessary. With regard to the Treasury Solicitor's inquiry, all kinds of witnesses were examined at it and it is clear that every one of the charges was of a completely frivolous character.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

CABLED REMITTANCES.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities have now been arranged for reducing the charges for money remittances by cable to troops


serving in Malta or any other stations where a regular mail service cannot at present be relied on?

Mr. Law: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that while it is not practicable to reduce the cost of transmitting telegraph money orders to Malta, special arrangements are being made for a more expeditious method of advising ordinary money orders, which should result in a much speedier service and go far to render unnecessary the transmission of money orders to Malta by telegraph.

Sir I. Albery: Can my hon. Friend say what measures he proposes to introduce, as great hardship at present exists and people have to pay as much as four or five shillings in order to send £2?

Mr. Law: I am afraid that for obvious reasons I cannot yet give details of the measures proposed, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the great expense which he describes will not be characteristic of the new arrangements.

Sir I. Albery: How are the people concerned to know what steps they can take, when there is no notice given to them?

Mr. Law: When these arrangements have been completed, fuller information will be given, and they are being made now.

Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister would pay the men sufficient wages, there would be no need to send them remittances.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made for the exchange of letters with British prisoners of war in Italian hands and for the despatch of food and clothing to them?

Mr. Law: Pending the receipt of the camp addresses of British prisoners of war in Italian hands, letters and postcards which are posted to them in this country are being forwarded to the Italian Red Cross in Rome for re-direction. As regards parcels of food and clothing, the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John have requested the International Red Cross Committee in Geneva to send parcels,

from stocks in their possession, through the same channels for distribution to these prisoners of war.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether steps are being taken to give fuller opportunities for the troops to attend technical, vocational and cultural classes, especially during the forthcoming months; whether adequate use is being made for such educational work of the teachers now enlisted in the Forces; and whether further use can be made of civilian organisations in arranging for classes, lectures and study groups?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. Machinery already exists for securing the assistance of universities and voluntary bodies as well as of local education authorities through the Central Advisory Council for Adult Education in His Majesty's Forces and the Regional Committees associated with it. in providing for the educational needs of all types of the troops, and steps have already been taken to secure an expansion of the educational service to meet the requirements of the coming months. It is contemplated that the fullest possible use should be made of the resources for this work available in the Forces together with those offered by civilian organisations.

Mr. Harvey: Would that include making use of the services of teachers of technical colleges, and lecturers of the Workers Educational Association, and others already enlisted?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I think it includes all those.

OFFICERS' LOST KIT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (for Lord Burghley): asked the Secretary of State for War whether, when deciding on the new assessment for the replacement sums to be paid to officers who lost their kit at Dunkirk, he will consider the practice of the Admiralty; and will he also take into account the greatly increased cost of this kit and the fact that depreciation of its value is unfair as the majority of officers could reasonably expect never to have to replace it?

Mr. Law: While it is not proposed to adopt the Admiralty rules. I am glad to be able to tell my Noble Friend that instructions are being issued which will have


the effect of introducing considerable relaxation in the basis of the assessment of compensation, to the benefit of the officers concerned. The new basis will be applied with retrospective effect to cover the replacement of kit lost in Norway and France, and will take into account the present increased cost of kit.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether the increase will be given to those officers who have already had a settlement—there was a large number of them in the case of Dunkirk—without their making further application for it?

Mr. Law: The details of the scheme have not yet been worked out, and I am not in a position to say whether the review will be automatic or whether applications will have to be made, but in any case the officers will be entitled to get the increase.

ROYAL NAVY (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether doctors in civilian practice who served in the Navy in the last war will be given priority of appointment on application to join up as surgeons or otherwise?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): The Admiralty, who make appointments of temporary medical officers on the recommendation of the Central Medical War Committee, at present require only young officers, mostly for seagoing appointments in small ships. The rank and responsibilities which newly entered officers are given would thus not be suitable for medical officers who served in the last war and who have now had long service in their profession.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether these older officers are not better than the younger ones and have they not acquired skill in dealing with special diseases?

Captain Hudson: We want up-to-date officers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the future Sittings of the House?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir. We propose that the House shall adjourn to-day until Tuesday, 17th September, and meet also on Wednesday, 18th, and Thursday, 19th September, which will give hon. Members an opportunity of debating several important matters.
The following subjects are proposed for debate:
Tuesday, 17th September—The scheme for physical recreation of young people.
Wednesday, 18th September — The health of the nation, with special reference to National Health Insurance.
The subject to be debated on Thursday, 19th September, will be announced later.
If necessary, I will make a statement on the war situation on one of these days.

Mr. Gallacher: In the Debate on the Wednesday will it be possible to discuss the question of old age pensions and supplementary benefits?

The Prime Minister: I believe there is a desire that that should be the subject of separate discussion.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to raise a point of Order. During the vacation a number of Questions have been sent in to the Clerk at the Table, and none of these appears on the Order Paper. I should like to ask whether it is intended that during the next interval in the sittings of the House no Questions will be accepted when the House is not sitting.

Mr. Speaker: It is contrary to the Rules of the House to accept Questions in those circumstances.

Mr. Woodburn: I was under the impression that if Questions were sent in 48 hours before the Sitting of the House, they would be in order. That has not been so during this vacation, and, therefore, I ask for your guidance as to what the proper procedure is.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member says is correct only in the case of a long adjournment of the House. It is not the rule when there is a short adjournment. If the House sits on Tuesday, there will be no opportunity to put down Questions.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that mean that any Questions that we desire to put must be handed in to-day?

Mr. Speaker: That is so.

Mr. Garro Jones: You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to indicate a few minutes ago that the Prime Minister was to make a statement in regard to the Sittings of the House during air raids. As this is a matter to which many hon. Members attach importance, may I ask whether that statement is to be made now or during the general statement by the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I propose to make it during my general statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. Moore: Further to the point of Order which was raised just now. Does your decision, Mr. Speaker, mean that those Questions which have been submitted to the Clerks at the Table during the last fortnight and have not been accepted or are handed in at the Table to-day will appear on the Order Paper on 17th September?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Frankel: In view of the fact that the House is working under exceptional procedure in these times, and that Questions which have been handed in lately cannot appear on the Order Paper until 17th September, would it not be advisable to make a new rule in view of the changed circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that that course might be considered, but it would require a special Order of the House.

Mr. Frankel: What is the procedure, Sir? May I move a Resolution?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can move a Resolution, but he must give notice of it on the Order Paper.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the Prime Minister give the House an indication whether it is the intention of the Government that, when we re-assemble on 17th September, we should sit once a week or twice a week? I tabled an Amendment to a Motion which I understood might be moved. I have not seen the Motion on the Order Paper, but I read about it in the Press.

The Prime Minister: Although the Government naturally want to meet Members' convenience, we must see how we get on, and must arrange our sittings in accordance with the public interest.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the importance and urgency of the discussion in this House of old age pensions, and in order to ensure a stronger feeling of continuity, would not the Prime Minister consider allocating a day next week for discussion of this subject?

The Prime Minister: These matters should be settled through the usual channels. I am very far from wishing to discourage the hon. Member, but some hon. Members are far more associated with the subject of old age pensions than I am aware the hon. Gentleman is.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 17th September."— [The Prime Minister.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Third Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

That they give leave to the Lord Cornwallis to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Sub-Committee on Army Services appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

WAR SITUATION.

4.19 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The memorable transactions between Great Britain and the United States, which I foreshadowed when I last addressed the House, have now been completed. As far as I can make out, they have been completed to the general satisfaction of the British and American peoples and to the encouragement of our friends all over the world. It would be a mistake to try to read into the official notes which have passed more than the documents bear on their face. The exchanges which have taken place are simply measures of mutual assistance rendered to one another by two friendly nations, in a spirit of confidence, sympathy and good will. These measures are linked together in a formal agreement. They must be accepted exactly as they stand. Only very ignorant persons would suggest that the transfer of American destroyers to the British flag constitutes the slightest violation of international law or affects in the smallest degree the non-belligerency of the United States.
I have no doubt that Herr Hitler will not like this transference of destroyers, and I have no doubt that he will pay the United States out, if ever he gets the chance. That is why I am very glad that the army, air and naval frontiers of the United States have been advanced along a wide are into the Atlantic Ocean, and that this will enable them to take danger by the throat while it is still hundreds of miles away from their homeland. The Admiralty tell us also that they are very glad to have these 50 destroyers, and that they will come in most conveniently to bridge the gap which, I have previously explained to the House, inevitably intervenes before our considerable war-time programme of new construction comes into service.
I suppose the House realises that we shall be a good deal stronger next year on the sea than we are now, although that is quite strong enough for the immediate work in hand. There will be no delay in bringing the American destroyers into active service; in fact, British crews are already meeting them at the various ports where they are being delivered.

You might call it the long arm of coincidence. I really do not think that there is any more to be said about the whole business at the present time. This is not the appropriate occasion for rhetoric. Perhaps I may, however, very respectfully, offer this counsel to the House: When you have got a thing where you want it, it is a good thing to leave it where it is.
The House has no doubt observed—to change the subject—that Rumania has undergone severe territorial mutilation. Personally, I have always thought that the Southern part of Dobrudia ought to be restored to Bulgaria, and I have never been happy about the way in which Hungary was treated after the last war. We have not at any time adopted, since this war broke out, the line that nothing could be changed in the territorial structure of various countries. On the other hand, we do not propose to recognise any territorial changes which take place during the war, unless they take place with the free consent and good will of the parties concerned. No one can say how far Herr Hitler's empire will extend before this war is over, but I have no doubt that it will pass away as swiftly as, and perhaps more swiftly than, did Napoleon's Empire, although, of course, without any of its glitter or its glory.
The general air battle, of which I spoke the last time we met together, continues. In July, there was a good deal of air activity, but August has been a real fighting month. Neither side has put out its full strength, but the Germans have made a very substantial and important effort to gain the mastery, and they have certainly put forth a larger proportion of their total air strength than we have found it necessary, up to the present, to employ against them. Their attempt to dominate the Royal Air Force and our anti-aircraft defences, by daylight attacks, has proved very costly for them. The broad figures of three to one in machines and six to one in pilots and crews, of which we are sure, do not by any means represent the total injuries inflicted upon the enemy. We must be prepared for heavier fighting in this month of September. The need of the enemy to obtain a decision is very great, and if he has the numbers with which we have hitherto credited him, he should be able to magnify and multiply his attacks during September.
Firm confidence is felt by all the responsible officers of the Royal Air Force in our ability to withstand this largely increased scale of attack, and we have no doubt that the whole nation, taking its example from our airmen, have been proud to share their dangers and will stand up to the position grim and gay. Now is the chance of the men and women in the factories to show their mettle, and for all of us to try to be worthy of our boys in the air and not make their task longer or harder by the slightest flinching. That, I know, is the temper of the nation, and even if the average attack is doubled or trebled—which last is most unlikely—and however long it continues, we believe that we can stand it and that we shall emerge from it actually and relatively stronger in the air than we were before.
Our Air Force to-day is more numerous and better equipped than it was at the outbreak of the war, or even in July, and, to the best of our belief, we are far nearer to the total of the German numerical strength, as we estimate it, than we expected to he at this period in the war. I asked that the German claims of British aircraft destroyed during July and August should be added up. I was curious to see the total to which they would amount. I found them to make the surprising total of 1,921 British air-craft destroyed. That total is rather like the figures we heard about of losses among our Fleet, many ships of which have been sunk several times over. The actual figure of British losses, which we have published daily for these last two months, is 558. Our loss in pilots is, of course, happily very much less. I do not know whether Herr Hitler believes the truth of his own published figures. I hope he does. Ons is always content to see an enemy plunged in error and self-deception. How very differently this air attack which is now raging has turned out from what we imagined it would be before the war. More than 150,000 beds have stood open and, thank God, empty in our war hospitals for a whole year. When the British people make up their minds to go to war they expect to receive terrible injuries. That is why we tried to remain at peace as long as possible. So far as the air attack is concerned, up to the present we have found it far less severe than what we prepared ourselves to endure and what we are still ready, if

necessary, to endure. One thousand and seventy-five civilians were killed during August in Britain, and a slightly greater number seriously injured. Our sympathy goes out to the wounded and to those who are bereaved, but no one can pretend that out of 45,000,000 people these are losses which, even if multiplied as they may be two or three times, would be serious compared to the majestic world issues which are at stake. Apart from minor or readily reparable injuries, about 800 houses have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair. I am not talking of what can be put right very quickly or what is worth while to put right, but 800 houses were actually damaged beyond repair out of a total in this island of 13,000,000 houses.
This, of course, is very different from the estimate of damage which was given to the War Committee which considered and decided against the possibility of an insurance scheme against air-raid damage to property. It would, in my judgment. be worth while for a further examination of such a scheme, particularly as it would affect the small man, and to make this examination in the light of facts which we now know and also of future possibilities about which we are in a far better position to form an opinion than we were before the war began. I have therefore asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the best way of making such a review in the light of the facts as they are to-day. It is very painful to me to see, as I have seen in my journeys about the country, a small British house or business smashed by the enemy's fire, and to see that without feeling assured that we are doing our best to spread the burden so that we all stand in together. Damage by enemy action stands on a different footing from any other kind of loss or damage, because the nation undertakes the task of defending the lives and property of its subjects and taxpayers against assaults from outside. Unless public opinion and the judgment of the House were prepared to separate damage resulting from the fire of the enemy from all those other forms of war loss, and unless the House was prepared to draw the distinction very sharply between war damage by bomb and shell and the other forms of loss which are incurred, we could not attempt to deal with this matter; otherwise we


should be opening up a field to which there would be no bounds. If, however, we were able to embark upon such a project as would give complete insurance, at any rate up to a certain minimum figure, for every one against war damage by shell or bomb, I think it would be a very solid mark of the confidence which after some experience we are justified in feeling about the way in which we are going to come through this war.
In the meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has to give so many halfpence and take so many kicks, and upon whose wisdom and practical good sense those who have been his colleagues have learned to rely—and I can assure the House that it is no mere flattery in order to get the money out of him—has agreed to the following arrangements, in addition to the satisfactory provisions which have already been made in respect of the personal injuries and immediate needs of those smitten. At present in cases where the income of the claimant's household does not exceed £400 a year and his resources are limited, payments are made to cover damage to essential household furniture up to a maximum of £50, and similar payments are made in respect of personal clothing up to £30, subject to income limits of £400 where there are dependants and £250 where there are no dependants. It is now proposed to abolish these upper limits of £50 and £30 respectively, so that payments for damage to the furniture or clothing of persons of limited means will now be made up to 100 per cent. of the damage, whatever that amount may be. Hitherto there has been no provision to enable workmen to replace tools which are their personal property and the use of which is vital to their employment. It is proposed to remedy this hardship by making provision for payments for these purposes, subject to the same income limits which apply in the case of the clothing advances. Similar payments will be made to professional people within the same limits of income. Finally, there is the case of the small retailer who is not insured under the Board of Trade Commodities Insurance Scheme. Here payments up to £50 will be made within the same income limits as for clothing and tools, in order to enable those retailers

to replace stocks essential to the continuance of trade. I may say that in all these three cases appropriate mitigating measures will be taken in the borderline cases lying just above the income limits.
Then there is the case of the coast towns which have been declared to be evacuation areas for the purpose of the Defence (Evacuated Areas) Regulations. Upon this a number of Members, as was their duty, have made representations to the Government. The Ministry of Health will be prepared, upon an application from the authorities of these areas, to make advances out of Exchequer funds to enable the authorities to meet liabilities for which collectable rate revenue will not suffice. These advances will be free of interest. The term "advances" in this case is understood to mean that the Government retain the right to call for repayment, but the question how far this right will be exercised will be considered after the war in the light of the financial circumstances then prevailing, both in the areas interested and in the country generally. These advances must be conditional upon the examination of the estimates of expenditure and of revenue, and for this purpose my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will arrange for officers of the Ministry of Health to visit the towns concerned and to confer with the mayors and principal officials—very plucky fellows, some of them; one is proud to meet them. Such conferences will afford an opportunity for advising and assisting the local authorities upon the best means of securing reasonable economy consistent with the maintenance of essential services, and they will also advise them about the collection of revenue. These local authorities will not in the present circumstances be required to increase their existing rate of poundage as a condition of financial assistance. It is recognised that the shortage of rate income will involve a deficit in the sums collected by rates levied for meeting county council precepts. It is understood that some of the local authorities are, in fact, proposing to limit their payments in respect of county precepts to that proportion of the total rate which represents the county rate which they have been able to collect. The Government propose to recognise and validate these arrangements, and if in any


case an unreasonable burden was thereby thrown upon the country's resources, the Government would not refuse to consider the possibility of extending to the county council some measure of assistance.
I think the House will see that we have been endeavouring to meet the cases both of individuals and of local authorities as they are affected by the conditions into which we have moved. We must expect for some time to come to have to live our lives and to carry on our work under these strange conditions, but they are conditions to which the fortitude and adaptiveness of the British people will not, we feel, be found unequal. If, as was suggested in a recent oration, there is to be a contest of nerve, will-power and endurance in which the whole British and German peoples are to engage, be it sharp or be it long, we shall not shrink from it. We believe that the spirit and temperament bred under institutions of freedom will prove more enduring and resilient than anything that can be got out of the most efficiently enforced mechanical discipline.
In the light of what we have learned so far with regard to the arrangements for air-raid warnings—here I come to the point on which I have been asked by the hon and gallant Gentleman opposite me —we have come to the conclusion that the arrangements for air-raid warnings and what is to be done when they are given, which appears to be another question, require very considerable changes. There is really no good sense in having these prolonged banshee howlings from sirens two or three times a day over wide areas, simply because hostile aircraft are flying to or from some target which no one can possibly know or even guess. All our precaution regulations have hitherto been based on this siren call, and I must say that one must admire the ingenuity of those who devised it as a means of spreading alarm. Indeed, most people now see how very wise Ulysses was when he stopped the ears of his sailors from all siren songs and had himself tied up firmly to the mast of duty.
Now that we are settling down to the job, we must have different arrangements from those devised before the war. It is right that everyone should know now that the red warning is more in the nature of a general alert than a warning of the imminence of danger to any particular

locality. In many cases it is physically impossible to give the alarm before the attack. Constant alarms come to be something in the nature of no alarm. Yet while they give no protection to very great numbers of people, who take no notice of them, they undoubtedly exercise a disturbing effect upon necessary war work. All our regulations, and much preaching, have taught people that they should take a whole series of steps, mostly of a downward character, when they hear the siren sound, and it is no use having official regulations which point one way and enjoin immediate respect for the alarm when exhortations are given, unofficially or officially, to disregard them and go on working. In our own case to-day, it was felt that the red warning should be taken merely as an alert, but that if special circumstances indicated the proximity of danger then the conditions of alarm should supervene. That is exactly what we did on receiving information that there was danger of a particular kind in the vicinity; and when that special condition departed we immediately resumed our work under the conditions of alert until the "All Clear," which has now sounded, restored us to normal. Something like this unrehearsed experiment may well give us guidance in our future treatment of the problem. All our regulations require to be shaped to the new basis which is being established by actual contact with events.
The responsibility to give clear guidance to the public in time of war is imposed upon His Majesty's Government. In order to preserve the confidence shown them by the House and by the public, the Government must act with conviction. I have, therefore, asked the various Departments concerned to review the whole position as a matter of urgency. In these matters one must expect to proceed by trial and error, and one must also try to carry public opinion along. What we want, on the one hand, is the greatest measure of real warning that is compatible with what all our people are resolved upon, namely, the active maintenance of war production. I will not make any specific announcement to-day, because we are in negotiation with very important bodies concerned, employers and employed, throughout the country. We want to move in these matters with sureness, precision and clarity, and no uncertainty or doubt, and I would like to have the


opportunity of a little further consultation with the different bodies that are now in touch with the Government. This is a matter, of course, which affects scores of millions of people. Therefore, I will not attempt to make any specific announcement to-day, but such an announcement must be made within the next week, at the latest. I think I have given the House a pretty clear indication of what is in our thoughts, and of the direction in which we are thinking of moving at the present time.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and that is this business of lighting the streets, the centres of the cities of our country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Motor cars."] Well, it is a difficult question. When my hon. Friend says, "Motor cars," he does not simplify it, but raises a point which has to be borne in mind. Winter is coming along, and I hope we are not going through all that gloomy business that we went through last year. I have, therefore, asked a committee of persons deeply versed in this matter, responsible people in the Departments, to meet together, and to see in what way we can make more light and cheer in the winter months, and at the same time subserve the purposes of alert and alarm. Such a course is not at all impossible, and I hope to come forward with some proposals, necessarily of a highly detailed character.
I do not mean to trespass at any length upon the time of the House this afternoon, because our affairs are evidently very largely in the region of action. No one must suppose that the danger of invasion has passed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—to whom I would have gladly paid some compliments if he had not already forestalled me, in a very charming manner, and probably robbed any compliments of some of their intrinsic value—is absolutely right in enjoining the strictest vigilance upon the great and growing armies which are now entrusted in this country to the command of Sir Alan Brooke. I do not agree with those who assume that after the 15th September—or whatever is Herr Hitler's latest date—we shall be free from the menace of deadly attack from overseas; because winter, with its storms, its fogs, its darkness, may alter the conditions, but some of the changes cut both

ways. There must not be for one moment any relaxation of effort or of wise precaution, both of which are needed to save our lives and to save our cause. I shall not, however, be giving away any military secrets if I say that we are very much better off than we were a few months ago, and that if the problem of invading Great Britain was a difficult one in June, it has become a far more difficult and a far larger problem in September.
Indeed, while all this preparation for home defence has been going forward on a gigantic scale, we have not hesitated to send a continuous stream of convoys with reinforcements to the Middle East. In particular, a few days ago we found it possible almost to double the effective strength of our Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean by sending some of our most powerful modern vessels to reinforce the flag of Sir Andrew Cunningham, the admiral in the Eastern Mediterranean. This movement, while plainly visible to the Italians, was not molested by them. Some of our great ships touched at Malta on the way, and carried a few things that were needed by those valiant islanders and their garrison, who, under a remarkably resolute Governor, General Dobbie, are maintaining themselves with the utmost constancy. We must expect heavy fighting in the Middle East before very long. We have every intention of maintaining our positions there with our utmost strength, and of increasing our sea power, and the control which follows from sea power, throughout the Mediterranean, not only in the Eastern basin but in the Western basin. In this way, both at home and abroad, we shall persevere along our course, however the winds may blow.

COAL INDUSTRY.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Before the House adjourns, may I draw attention to a question which, while appearing small compared with the general review which the Prime Minister has made, is of considerable importance to certain industrial communities in this country? It may be my lot this afternoon to say some rather strong things about the treatment of certain workmen, or, rather, of those who are deprived of work at present. No one has seen with greater pleasure than I have the increase of employment throughout this country, but in the


Special Areas, which have been hit for the last 10 years, there is rapidly developing a situation almost as bad as that which existed at the time when the Government took action in respect of those areas. It is all very well for great parts of the country, where people are working regularly, and in many cases receiving not only comparatively good wages but overtime as well; but the country and the Government have no right to forget those who are compelled by circumstances to be idle, sometimes for months at a time. In Durham and South Wales a situation is developing which is, to say the least, menacing so far as the good will of the people in respect of the war effort is concerned. Will the House believe that, while the unemployment figures generally have gone down this month, they have in limited areas in South Wales and Durham increased by some thousands, and that in some areas the miners have not done a day's work for the past 10 weeks? The concern which this fact is causing is illustrated by a letter that I received from a miners' lodge in my district after I had met a deputation. They are a body of miners who are very moderate in their outlook and opinions. They say:
We have worked only eight days since the beginning of June and feel that something should be done urgently to prevent the rot which is becoming more and more apparent as the weeks pass on. … While we admit that the new conditions undoubtedly contributed to the present impasse we feel strongly that some measure of reorganisation should have now been effected, so that our members who are anxious to play their part in the war effort should have been found something to do. The fact that we have been idle for so weeks makes us wonder whether we are receiving the consideration and prominence to-day as was given to us or asked of us a few months ago? Or are we to feel that we are being neglected, that we are becoming a spent force? Here is a body of men unused to idleness, full of energy, and with a very strong will to play their part in the defeat of the common enemy.
The sense of frustration that is abroad in these two mining areas is almost pitiful. In my own district, within a radius of 10 miles, there are no fewer than 10,000 miners idle. The unemployed miners number nearly 40,000. There are 19,000 miners idle in Durham, and I think the rest will be found in South Wales. But the people who have been rendered idle during the last few months are employed at the collieries which have

been working regularly and are affected by the new conditions which now prevail. These people are not afraid of bombs—I speak with knowledge, because I have seen them during bombing and immediately afterwards —but they are terribly afraid of unemployment. With due respect to my hon. and very good Friend, no Government have the right to leave these people for 10 weeks without calling upon their services, particularly at the present time. Frankly, something has to be done. Although the enemy cannot get Fifth Column representatives into this country, we would certainly be doing him a good turn by allowing this situation to continue and letting our people go sour. My experience is that bitterness is growing. Long before now the Government ought to have been taking definite notice of this question. Nobody has been there from the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Mines, and nobody has said to these men that they have had any responsibility. I have occupied some responsible positions in my own area during the past 12 months, and I can tell the House that this situation is so bad that, if it is not met, I propose to give the whole of my time to trying to compel the Government to meet it.
It may be asked, What can be done? My right hon. Friend, very early, gave me a letter saying that the miners could go to other work. The Government have rightly said—and I support them—that certain men should be limited to certain work; that miners should be limited to the mines. The younger men have been reserved from the Army. Miners have been working in the pits at about half the wages that some workers are receiving in munition work. It is a well-known fact that the miner on the whole receives less in wages than those workers who are employed directly as a result of the war, but the miners have not complained. It is to their credit that they have not said anything about it. But they are limited to the mines. Could the House believe that it was necessary to ask the Secretary for Mines and the Minister of Labour to relieve these men so that they could go to other work? The Secretary for Mines was kind enough to send me a very explicit letter, as did also the Minister of Labour, saying that these men could go to other work, but recently when miners have got work in munition factories or at other places out-


side the mines, they have been refused their green cards by the Ministry of Labour.
There is scarcely a miner of my acquaintance who has got work in this way who has not had to come to me. A well set-up young man came to me last week. He had offered himself for service in the Air Force. The Air Ministry had grabbed him. They were very pleased to have a young man of that type offering himself for service. He is about 20 years of age, well set-up, very intelligent and industrious. He has enlisted in the Air Force on condition that he can get released from the mines, and the Ministry of Labour refuses to give him his green card even to join the Forces. That is a ridiculous position. It looks very much like the result of indecision, wherever the responsibility lies, as far as the Government are concerned. Is there any sense in having the Minister of Supply appealing over the wireless for increased pressure on the part of munition workers to work 12 hours a day and seven days a week, when, side by side, there are hardy, industrious adult workers who want to do some work but cannot get it? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is time that the Government had a system of work sharing, and I do not limit that merely to sharing the output of coal. Something should be done in that direction. There are all kinds of national factories and munition works where both men and women are working overtime, in some cases until they complain of exhaustion, and yet our men are refused an opportunity of playing their part in the national effort and sharing the work which is going. My hon. Friend may say that these men will be wanted at some time. That may be, although I doubt it. If they are wanted, no Government has the right to stand by and allow them to be idle merely because they may be wanted in the distant future. These men were being asked a few weeks ago to give of their best. They are so enthusiastic in their desire to participate in the service of the country that in my own county they have actually given out of their funds two Spitfires to the country.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): And ambulances, too.

Mr. Lawson: And a considerable amount for ambulances too. These people

ought to receive immediate attention. My hon. Friend may have some answer to all this. The only answer would be to get these men work. He may be able to make some suggestion as to what should be done in some vague future. My complaint is that nobody comes near to these men. No representative of the Government has taken steps to explain the position on the spot. The Ministry of Labour actually seems to be taking steps which hinder men from taking work when they have the opportunity of getting it. I am not an advocate of transference. I know that men have received that offer. Transference is not a very pretty idea in peace time, and it does not seem to be very hopeful in war time. There is work going and men are idle and have been so for 10 weeks. A new Special Area has now developed, and the country apparently cares just as little about that special area as it cared about the old ones. I ask my hon. Friend, and at least my Labour friends in the Government, to see to it that an end is put to this situation very quickly. If it is not then there can be no more likely centres of disaffection and despondency than will he found among the groups of men in these colliery areas. It is not that they have any towards this country, but unless this problem is settled the Government will be responsible for that situation.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I want to express my personal thanks to my hon. Friend for having raised this most important subject this afternoon. We all sensed and felt with him his difficulties in getting lip after the great statement made by our Prime Minister, but there is, nevertheless, in the situation that he has so strongly and justifiably referred to a great deal that cannot be dissociated from the war effort which is being made in this country. There is no section of the working-class population in this country which is more anxiously ready to make the maximum contribution towards our war effort than the miners of this country, but, on the other hand, while they are about the least squeamish section of our population, they are, possibly, as a result of their environment and their experiences, the most impatient section of the people of this country. Once it is driven home by circumstances that they


are receiving a raw deal, then we know from experience that we will have a very difficult lot to handle.
As my hon. Friend said, there is a profoundly conscious desire on the part of the miners of this country to make a maximum effort, and they cannot understand why the product that they are called upon, and are willing, to produce is not being used on a much larger scale and in an infinitely less chaotic fashion than it is being handled to-day. I know that the great historical happenings which have taken place have upset the somewhat uncertain equilibrium which existed in the industry up to a few months ago, but what makes the miners most anxious is this: They are not satisfied with the effort which is being made to bring back into the industry some measure of organisation or better equilibrium than exists at present. My hon. Friend has rightly complained—and I share his feelings entirely—about the unemployment of the miners. Side by side with that unemployment is, in some parts of the coalfields of this country, a considerable amount of over-employment. Overtime is being worked to such an extent that it is an absolute disgrace to the industry. I find it so within my own coalfields, where, as the Secretary for Mines knows, some collieries have been largely idle for several weeks. Quite near to them I see in my travels men from the day shift returning late in the afternoon and in the early hours of the evening, and I know there is considerable pressure being brought to bear on many miners to work at week-ends. I am not referring to the continuous shift workmen at all, but between one coalfield and another, and even within the same coalfield, these contradictory influences are at work.
May I very respectfully be permitted to say this? I am a lifelong friend of the Secretary for Mines, with whom I have had the greatest pleasure in working in my own coalfield for many years past, indeed, for more years than we are very anxious to count just now. I know the added difficulties which are immediately confronting him, so far as some of our coalfields are concerned, and I know that the winter months will make a problem in some parts of the country more difficult than at present, but I cannot possibly see that the conditions in our coalfields will be improved unless my hon. Friend is determined upon a complete reorganisation of coal production and

distribution, and has a central authority, with real authority, so that the whole activities of our coalfields shall be coordinated and directed by one body. Unless that is done, the competition that still exists between coalfield and coalfield will continue, although I admit that some good measures have been taken, up to a point, to reduce that competition. I should be more than delighted to find that that authority is the Department over which he presides. Unless the suggestion I have made is carried out, I cannot see the remotest possibiity of the present chaos being removed. There is no earthly reason why coal mines or coalfields should be working more than their normal time, while others, producing coal equally as rich and as varied in its qualities, should be working either half time, a little more than half time or not at all.
I feel that I should be wasting the time of the House if I merely dilated upon the present situation, but I would ask my hon. Friend to take this step and to encourage other uses for coal. There could be a substantial contribution towards the mining industry of this country if coal was used on the roads of this country in vehicles instead of the petrol that is being imported, although I know the difficulties of getting other materials to exploit that idea. I know the Secretary for Mines is up against it; the war conditions of the last three or four months have made his problem extremely difficult, but he must take possession of the mining industry of this country and have one central authority if the mass of contradictions that exists now is to be removed and there is to be an end to the stupid inhibitions that are handicapping the industry at the moment.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The House is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) for having raised this vital question to-day, and he has so effectively covered the ground that so far as the statistical position is concerned there is not a great deal to say of the unemployment of large numbers of miners, particularly in the North of England. The constituency which I represent—Consett and the County of Durham generally—is probably more severely hit by the present situation than any other section of our coal fields. The loss of our export


markets undoubtedly makes the situation most acute and difficult, and the House will sympathise with the Secretary for Mines in particular, and with the Government in general. Nevertheless, we believe that measures can be taken to deal with it. During the short Recess I have been invited to meet deputations of colliery owners as well as colliery workers, and while not presuming to be in any sense a technologist, or to impinge on the rights of the workers' associations, certain views have been expressed which may be in harmony with the views that the Minister himself holds. One need not enlarge on the fact that at -the moment a number of the collieries in Consett and County Durham generally are shut down and that large numbers of workers who were working short time have received 14 days' notice to terminate their employment.
That situation is very ominous in view of the attitude which the Government have hitherto adopted with regard to mine workers. Certain men who have received notice have advised me that they have had opportunities of full employment in other collieries and in other occupations, and that this has been specifically refused by their colliery owners. This seems as though they were chained to the mines until they received their notices. If for national reasons men must be retained in any particular occupation and cannot seek adequate and full employment elsewhere, in my view they are entitled to full remuneration during the time that they may be unemployed. That may seem an unorthodox view, but it is carried out in the case of ambulance drivers and others who must stand by in case of urgent military and other necessities, and what is sound for one section of the community owing to enemy action ought to be equally good as far as mining is concerned.
The Minister states in a communication to me dated 16th August that it is our policy to share orders as far as possible. Is this the key to the disabilities under which the Northern coalfields are suffering? Certainly the coalowners have declared that that would in their judgment solve the problem of equitable distribution of all orders which are available throughout the industry. The Minister

will be able to say whether that is or is not practicable. The owners contend that Durham and Northumberland coal is almost as good as the coal at present being consumed for domestic and industrial purposes and that, if a strong stand were taken with consumers—and the Ministry have powers to take whatever stand they think fit—this coal could be sent from Northumberland and Durham to different parts of the country. They advised me, with what accuracy I cannot say, that if such a distribution were made in face of the orders currently held and anticipated, it should not mean more than a day's short time throughout the whole industry. The Prime Minister used the excellent phrase, as far as the situation generally is concerned, "We all stand in together." That must apply to the mining industry also, and, if this strong stand that we call for is taken and they insist that our coal shall be sent to other parts of the country in order to employ our miners, that would be a solution of the problem. The Secretary for Mines stated in reply to a question:
I am bound to ask domestic consumers in Northern Ireland, equally with those in other parts of the United Kingdom, to be prepared to use the same proportion of types and sizes of coal to which they are not accustomed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1940; col. IIII, Vol. 364.]
If that applies to Northern Ireland and to domestic coal, it equally applies to other parts of the United Kingdom and to domestic and to industrial consumers also. Of course, there would be resentment shown by these consumers at having to make some departure from their normal consumption of particular classes of coal, but I am advised upon careful investigation that this is not an insuperable difficulty and that Northumberland and Durham coal, although largely of the coking variety, could be consumed industrially. If that is so, it is surely an imperious obligation upon the Secretary or Mines to take that stand and to undertake the unpleasant task of forcing this view upon consumers. In fact he obtains at once, with some relatively small sacrifice, by compulsion it is true, a solution of the problem of the distribution of orders generally and a solution of what may prove a very serious detriment to the sense of loyalty which is current among the mining section. We want no such change. We want the magnificent spirit


that prevails there, and the indomitable characteristics of the North, to be preserved, but we warn the Government that it will inevitably be sapped if, in the face of possible remedies, you force heavy unemployment on this most industrial section of the community.

5.37 p.m.

Miss Ward: I believe in proper and adequate planning for the mining industry, and I noticed the other day a case in relation to employment in the mines which I think merits investigation. A man who had been a stoker in the Navy, and had been employed subsequently on ships' trials at a very big shipyard as a stoker, went into the pits, I think since the war began, and was very anxious to come out and get back to the particular job in which he was skilled. I applied to the Ministry of Labour and was refused on the ground that the man is in a reserved occupation and that no one apparently wishes to use his services in the job for which he is really skilled, and consequently he must remain in the pits. If pit men who have worked in the collieries for years are to be put out of employment, it seems to me it would be a wise scheme, first of all, to see whether men who are not by profession pit men could not be absorbed into the industries for which they have adequate training. I suggest that my hon. Friend should investigate this side of employment in the mines.
A rumour has reached me, as rumours do, though I believe this is true, of a new scheme which is being fathered by the distributors, with the consent and good will of the Mines Department, to improve the distribution of coal. This is a very important question, and we would all wish to give the hon. Gentleman every possible support in seeing that there is no recurrence of what happened last winter. That the scheme had the support, and must have been within the knowledge, of the Mines Department is borne out by the fact that a very important official in the Department is going to be the director. I am a little uncertain, because trying to find out what the plans of a Government Department really are is almost beyond the human mind and the human machine. The scheme was either put forward by the distributors or by the merchants, or by the Mines Department, or all of them, but it was unacceptable, and part of it has been

withdrawn. I am certain that the part for improving the distribution of coal will be welcomed by all sections of the community, but I ask for an assurance that no scheme will be launched which involves the whole organisation of the coal industry unless adequate and proper consultation has taken place between the interests concerned, that is to say, the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation. Whether the distributors and merchants are part of the Mining Association or are represented by the Miners' Federation is almost beyond the lay mind, but when very vast and wide powers are being conferred, rightly, on the Government during the war, it is essential that no scheme shall be launched unless all parties concerned have been consulted and have been given an opportunity of hammering out a common policy which will be of benefit to all sides.
I am certain the hon. Gentleman knows all the innuendoes connected with the remarks that I am making. I only ask that we shall not be faced with a fait accompli and that all the interests concerned shall have an opportunity of studying the details of the scheme and expressing their view of it before it is launched. The original scheme raised a good deal of controversy. Having tramped around the streets of Whitehall from one Government Department to another, I am becoming a very wise woman. I have learnt a very great deal in the nine years that I have been in the House of Commons; I know the extraordinary things that go on inside Government Departments, and I know the barrier that there is between Government Departments and the House of Commons. Sometimes Members of Parliament know things which Government Departments would rather they did not know. All I ask is an assurance that all interests shall be consulted, and I am certain that we shall get a scheme which will be agreeable to everyone and which will avoid the difficult position which was created last winter and which will be of general benefit to the community.

5.44 p.m.

Sir Cuthbert Head lam: I have rather more faith in Government Departments than the hon. Lady. Perhaps that is because I have been in one and she has not. But I realise that she is of a hopeful disposition and, though she may not have the


confidence in Departments that I have, I think she will accord to the Minister the compliment of supposing that if he is making any arrangements such as she suggests, he would have the common sense to consult all those who are interested. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) introduced this subject to-night, because although I no longer represent a mining constituency, I live in a coal area, and I am very much in touch with the situation in the north of England generally. I realise that there is much truth in what the hon. Member said, and that the situation of the miners, in the County of Durham particularly, is a difficult one at the present time. We do not want to have any repetition of the state of things that existed in the northern counties after the last war, and unless the matter of coal production and distribution is better thought out than it has been in the past, I am pretty certain we shall be face to face with those conditions when the war is over. Therefore, I suggest that the present time is a good opportunity for those who are connected with the coal industry and for the Ministry which serves the coal industry to work out plans for the future and to make ready for the times that are ahead.
My opinion is that at the present time a great many miners are surplus in the county of Durham for the simple reason that the export trade in coal has gone down so enormously. The first duty of the Government is to try by every means in their power to increase the export of coal. Although the field for export in Europe is much reduced, there should be opportunities in South America, particularly, where we might increase very largely our coal exports. I am convinced that the Minister will have a word to say about that, because it is really the whole point as far as Durham is concerned. Our coal is largely export coal; although it can be used as other coals are used for other purposes in England and the British Isles generally, it is mainly an export coal. The Germans were obliged to use our coal for many purposes in the old days, and I have no doubt they suffer from the loss of it at the present time, but until better times come in Europe, it is clear that if we are to get new markets they must be in another hemisphere. That is the main direction in which, if I were

Minister, I would direct my mind at the present time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) that is would be a good thing if we could improve the distribution of coal throughout the country, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he has made arrangements which he considers to be satisfactory for a better supply of coal throughout the country during the coming winter. In my opinion, there was last year a deal of suffering which would have been quite unnecessary if there had been any forethought or provision. I am not attacking the Minister for that, because he was not responsible for what was evidently gross mismanagement. If we could utilise Durham and Northumberland coal for distribution in England, Ireland and Scotland for other purposes than those for which it has been used before, it might help our trade considerably.
But it is obvious that, however much we strive to the contrary, there will be a great deal of unemployment in certain mines in the country, for the time being, at any rate. Therefore, miners who are so willing should be allowed to join His Majesty's Forces. They should be allowed to find other forms of work on the understanding, of course, that if their services are required again in the mines, they will come back to the mines. There is a feeling among certain people, the mine owners in particular, and to a certain extent, I understand, the Ministry, that if miners once get away from the mines, it may be difficult to get them back again. There may be something in that, but at the present time it is a risk that should be taken. Every man in the mining industry who cannot be employed as a miner ought to be allowed to find work of some other kind, and more especially ought to be invited or moved to join His Majesty's Forces. As the Prime Minister warned us in his speech this afternoon, there is no reason why every man who can do so should not make himself trained for the tasks that may be ahead of us. Let me conclude by saying that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street or the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) that there is any danger of the miners in Durham or Northumberland becoming so disgruntled as to lose faith in their country or becoming useless members of society. I know how keen they are to do their work, I know how miserable


they are at the thought of not being able to do their work, but I have a high enough opinion of their loyalty and courage to know that, whatever happens, they can be depended upon to protect their country.

5.51 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I should be happy if my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) were present, because I want to acknowledge the very kind words he addressed to me and the way in which he approached me on this very serious question affecting the County of Durham and South Wales. This trouble is really localised. I am glad to find that at this time I can sit on this side of the House without being out of step or out of harmony with the opinions of my old friends opposite. There is a great deal of justification for some of the complaints that have been made, but the justification will not be assessed in its right proportion unless we take a general view of the whole problem. Speaking for the Mines Department, I would say that to-day we are more concerned about production and distribution than ever before in the history of the Department. We have undertaken certain obligations towards industry, and I am glad to be able to say that the relations between the Department and both sides of the industry have never been happier than they are at the present time, and that the relations between the two sides of the industry are far happier than I can ever remember them before. I can only attribute this fact to the common loyalty and common desire of both sides to play their part in this crisis.
When I came to the Department, I found certain problems the nature of which I knew before I arrived. Let me refer first to the general measure of our production and what it implies to us in this struggle; how important it is in the structure of our war machine, and what an important contribution it has made to the whole superstructure of the national effort which the country has built up in the last year or two. At the end of one year of war, we are producing at a rate per annum greater than a year ago. We are now producing, with a smaller number of men, more coal per individual working shift and more coal in the aggregate than we have

produced for many years past. I do not think it necessary to give details of the figures of production. My hon. Friends know them as well as I do up to 1939. They have been withheld since the war began, because it is not an advantage to publish too widely details of our war effort either in the mines or anywhere else. We are at the present time producing substantially more than we were 12 months ago. In a certain period in 1940 we have produced 3,000,000 tons more than we did in the same period of 1939. It should be a great comfort to us and a great reinforcement of our confidence to know that in proportion to our population we are producing a larger quantity of coal, a larger measure of motive power, a larger volume of industrial power, than any other country in the world has ever done.
We are producing now at the rate of five tons per head of the population each year and consuming for purposes of all kinds at the rate of four tons per head of the population. No country in the world has ever enjoyed command over such power as we enjoy in the production and possession of this regular output of coal. It is the secret of our war strength. A short while ago the Brussels wireless broadcast a German boast that Germany had invaded and overrun all the coal-producing countries of Europe except Soviet Russia, and that Germany had raised the production of coal under her control to 350,000,000 tons a year. That figure is somewhat larger than ours, but the 350,000,000 tons so produced have to serve the needs of over 300,000,000 people on the continent of Europe. When one divides the number of tons by the number of people who have to depend upon that coal for power, warmth and light, one finds that the continent of Europe under German domination has no more than one ton per head of the population, while we use every day for our comfort and strength four times as much. In addition, we have abundant supplies of liquid fuel in this country. The Germans have to consume some of their raw coal to provide themselves with liquid fuel. When all that has been done, there are reports of deprivations and hardships in all parts of the German-occupied territories.
I have great pride in this industry to which I belong. My hon. Friends and I belong to this industry as we belong to


nothing else on earth. It is an industry to which we have given the best years of our lives. We shall never have those years again. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street made me feel old when he referred to the long years when we worked together in happy association; those were the days of youth, and not the days of old age. In this industry the question of personnel is vital to production. One cannot train a miner in a few months; indeed, the time necessary for training a soldier is very much shorter than the time required to train a miner. One cannot make a job of that training unless the man is trained in a variety of occupations and under a variety of circumstances which may last five to 10 years. I was a far better miner after 15 years than I was after five years. The personnel of the mining industry can do their work. They are adaptable people, but they are better in the mines than anywhere else. I am trying to adapt myself, but I shall never be as good at this Box as I was in the pit. That is our trade, a highly skilled trade calling for considerable experience.
I had to safeguard the personnel of the industry if we were to achieve our mission in this great national effort. My predecessor had set up a committee. He had called in the aid of Lord Portal, and investigations had been made in each of the producing districts. The National Production Council was in process of being formed, and the organisations of employers, and the Miners' Federation had come together with a view to raising the power of production to meet the demands coming from France. This was a larger demand than w e had ever had to meet. The request from France was that we should multiply by three times our normal quantity of coal exports. The Mines Department and the industry prepared to face this responsibility. I came to the Department after the scheme had been launched, but I, too, had to play my part. I recognised the first thing was to try to obtain sufficient of all three vital factors of production—first, labour; second, material; and third, pit room. The country should realise the nature of modern mining. It is very hard work, and mechanisation has not made it easier but more onerous. Output has been considerably increased by the aid of mecha-

nisation, and we are now producing in this country, despite our inconveniences, 25 per cent. more coal per man than in the year 1918. Whereas we had 50 per cent. more men in those years to produce the coal.
I recognised that there was a limit to the amount of work to be exacted from each of the workers. I recognised that there was no question of increasing the hours of work, and that every man must work within the limits of steady "workability." To do that we needed more men in the industry. This was necessary if we were to fulfil our promise and supply to France all the coal she needed and also to maintain our exports to South America, Portugal and Canada and pay for our essential imports from all parts of the world. We required not only to keep all our men, but to add at least 40,000 or 50,000 more. I saw the Minister of Labour on this point. He has been involved in solving this problem, and I acknowledge his very great assistance and his understanding of the subject.

Mr. Lawson: Can the Minister tell us why the Minister of Labour's Department is not represented to-day? I gave special notice about this matter, and they should be here to reply on the question of men who have been refused work.

Mr. Grenfell: I made inquiries yesterday morning, and was told that the Minister would not be back until Monday next. However, it may be my fault because I really did not know that we were to concentrate so much upon this aspect of the subject. As I say, I asked the Minister to help me in obtaining the men, and he very sensibly asked, "Will you tell me what you want?" He pointed out that there was a Schedule of Reserved Occupations, for which he was not responsible, designed to conserve the necessary labour for each industry. "Do you want a larger number than you have at present?" he asked. I told him that I needed about 40,000 or 50,000 more men. I told him that we needed at least 800,000 men if we were to produce 20,000,000 to 24,000,000 more tons of coal. I made a personal appeal, and the result was that we had the assistance of the Minister of Labour, and an instruction was issued on 10th June that men were not to leave the mining industry. We could not increase the personnel in the industry if men were to be allowed to leave it freely. We issued


invitations and gave inducements, and, indeed, there was a form of pressure to be applied to bring men back, to increase the number of 760,000 to round about 800,000. This instruction was sent out on 10th June. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) and all in the mining industry ought to know that the instructions were explicit and well understood by all the men in all the districts at that time. No clearer explanation of these terms could have been given than was contained in a pamphlet issued by the Durham Miners' Association. Everyone in Durham knew the terms on which men were expected to stay in or to leave the industry. We wanted to get men back into the industry because as long as there was work they would stay there. In the case of trained men who came under the reserved occupation schedule they were expected to stay in the mines.
Then came the change. It is a story known to Members in this House. It was the cessation of demands from Europe. Europe was cut off. Holland, Belgium and France fell, and, unhappily, as a consequence there was no door for the admission of British coal except to Portugal. It meant that 2,000,000 tons a month were cut off as an "exportable possibility." We found we had no need for more men and that there was actually a surplus of coal in the export trade. My hon. Friends are entitled to express disappointment and even indignation that men in the coalfields, some in South Wales, have not worked a day, or only a few days, since 24th June. Men in Durham and the North have worked very little and have not been able to augment very appreciably their unemployment benefit, which has been the limit of their incomes during this time. We all regret it, and I am very sorry indeed about it, but we want to view it in its right perspective. These are victims of war conditions over which the Minister and the Government have no control.
Automatically, probably because of my old views, my mind turned at once to the possibility of sharing work—that is sharing work within districts and between the more prosperous districts and those who have become the victims of these unhappy changes in Europe. There are some cases in the Midland areas in the quarter just ended where they have pro-

duced very much more coal than they did in the corresponding quarter of last year. They have never worked so regularly, and never produced so much coal for household use in the summer. And so our minds turned naturally to the possibility of sharing orders, and giving everyone a chance, instead of keeping some people idle. But we came up against problems which we cannot eliminate and overcome. There is the problem, for instance, of divergences in quality between one pit and another. All my hon. Friends know quite well that it is no use asking gasworks to take dry steam coal or railway companies to burn steam coal which is not strong enough to stand the strain of the forced draught of locomotive boilers. You cannot send to a gasworks, coal which contains no by-products. The solidity of the coal industry in this country is due to the fact that we have a greater variety of coal for industrial purposes than any other part of the world.
Then there is the problem of transport, and that is not an easy problem. Our internal consumption of coal has been very much higher than it was in recent years, and we have had to shift about on our railways very much more coal than before. Further, there have been the restrictions on coastwise shipping. The Ministry of Transport met our requests from time to time and a record number of trains have been sent from the extreme North to the South. Never before has so much Durham and Northumberland coal come by rail into the London area and into the South. We have sent coal from South Wales to Lancashire and into areas where formerly it was not burnt. We made appeals to people to use the next best quality of coal available where they have not been able to obtain their usual supply. Although Durham and South Wales have lost between one-third and one-half of their previous orders, the loss of employment in Durham has, on an average, been one day a week during the last 10 weeks, and in South Wales it has hardly been half a day a week. My hon. Friends may ask what that means to a body of men who are not getting any work at all. We do not want to overload our transport system and to be unable to deliver the large quantities required for home consumption in addition to the coal we are trying to send abroad. I am sure I could convince my hon. Friends with


figures that large quantities of Durham coal are being taken to markets where it formerly did not go. Large quantities of South Wales coal are also going to such markets.
I do not see how we can get all these pits fully employed even if we listened to all the appeals that are made to us. Suppose that I said I would divide the whole output of all the pits among the men and found it worked out at five and two-thirds shifts a week. Suppose I then said that five and two-thirds shifts should be worked in every pit. Is it assumed that this would solve the problem of men who want to migrate from the mining industry, or of the men who are attracted by higher wages in the munition works? It would not. Complaints come to me in large numbers from pits where men are given the chance to work full time. They cannot hold their men. I could name pits where men are leaving because there is more remunerative work in the neighbourhood. It is natural that men should want to leave and we know why men want to leave the mining industry if they get the chance. This problem, therefore, is not solved by simply arriving at a flat arithmetical division of the orders for coal and of dividing the opportunities for work between the men in all the coalfields.
We have two months or more during which we can carry on a very extensive stocking programme. I want to assure the House then when the surplus coal made its appearance, when we called back from the high seas the coal that was being sent to France and we saw the door shut against our exports, we devised steps to distribute the coal at home. Every week in the last month and the previous month we have been adding to the stocks of this country at the rate of no less than 750,000 tons a week. One-third of that was added to the stocks of household consumers, either in their coal houses or in the yards of the merchants. At least 250,000 tons a week is being added to household stocks, while stocks for electricity and gas works have been totalling up week by week regularly. We have now saved up in this country for any emergency that may occur no less than 22,000,000 tons of coal, in addition to the coal that is nearly always liable to be standing round the pitheads amounting to 3,500,000 tons.

That stock will be added to day by day, unless something happens to prevent it. The House should remember the special conditions under which we live and we should not blind ourselves to the possibilities of accidents of all kinds. I am not sure that there might not be interruptions with rail transport which would considerably curtail the movement of coal, or that there might not be interruptions with road transport.
The Mines Department are anxious to keep all the mines in production as long as possible. The hon. Member for Con-sett quoted some words of mine. I will use them again, and say that we would not like to allow any pit to go out of production or the possibility of production, until we have a guarantee that all wants are supplied. While we are stocking we are trying to share work. I can assure my hon. Friends that we have really shared work, although it has not been as complete as I would like. I know what happens in the coal districts and I am anxious, if we can, to find these men something to do, even temporarily. Conversations are now taking place between officers of my Department and officers of the Ministry of Labour. I shall see the Minister of Labour next Monday, and I hope it will be found possible to let men go to other industries if they wish. I shall not dictate the terms on which men will be released. Suppose, say, in Durham or South Wales men have not been able to get three or four days' work for some months and there is no prospect that they will get work, they will be regarded as fit for transference elsewhere.

Mr. Cordon Macdonald: Will that privilege be confined to pits that are closed down?

Mr. Grenfell: I said pits in which work could not be found. In those cases men will be allowed to transfer to other districts or to join the Army voluntarily. A large number of men want to join the Army and we shall lose the cream of our manhood in the industry because of men going into the Army unless we can find regular work for them. Hon. Members must not assume that the Mines Department or the Miners' Federation or the Coalowners' Association want to keep men in the coalfields out of the Army. The miners are not that type. We must,


however, keep the industry going, for it is the groundwork of all our war preparations and war machine. We must keep young men in the industry because the old men cannot do the job, and if we raise the age of reservation it will cripple the industry. It must be remembered that these men will be taken not only from pits working slack time, but from pits which are producing to maximum capacity. We are discussing with the Minister of Labour how far w can relax the terms of the instruction sent out by him, in order that men who are unable to get a decent livelihood may go from the industry, on the understanding that if they are wanted back again in some reasonable term of time, they will come back.

Mr. Lawson: In his discussions with the Minister of Labour will my hon. Friend take into consideration the possibility of sharing the work in the munitions factories? In my own area there is a large munitions factory where people work overtime. Side by side there are good men who have done nothing for three months. Why cannot the shifts in factories like that be increased so that these men could be given work?

Mr. Grenfell: I am not entitled to say what should be done in the Ministry of Labour factories or in private factories for which the Ministry provides labour. I think I should confine myself to my own job.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the Minister know that in mines in certain parts men are working overtime practically every day?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, but I am sure that the volume of overtime spread over the whole is not very large. It does not mean more than a fraction of a shift a day spread over the whole industry.

Mr. Griffiths: The men feel that it is not contrary to the law to work 8, 9 or 10 shifts a week.

Mr. Grenfell: More than six shifts a week can be worked by law and when there are special payments for afternoon and night shifts eight shifts may be done without violating the law. That is, however, purely an internal question into which I will not enter. I have tried to convince the House that the stocking programme has prevented worse results from developing but I am convinced that something much more must be done.
The next point to which I will refer is that raised by the hon. Member for Wall-send (Miss Ward). She has succumbed to the propaganda which has been very active from certain quarters and she was persuaded, until I saw her this afternoon, that this scheme of the Mines Department was a revolutionary measure which might inflict great injury upon the industry and and impair considerably the efforts of those responsible for the production of coal. I can assure the hon. Lady that there was never any intention of refusing to take into consultation those who produce the coal. There was no reason why the Miners' Federation should be asked to discuss the details of the scheme. It was of course proper that they should be informed that this general reorganisation was taking place; but they would have been angry if we had invited the Merchants' Association to be present at negotiations conducted by them, and there was no need for joining them in the negotiations. They were informed, and perhaps they might have been informed earlier, but this was all tentative. The first draft was very rough. I saw it, and after we met the Merchants' Federation we informed the Joint Consultative Council, who did not like the scheme too much. They have not, however, expressed any opposition to the general principle, which is that there must be better organisation. The hon. Lady herself said we did not want the same thing to happen next winter. Last winter was an unfortunate one and the long arm of coincidence might bring, next winter, the same extremities of weather. We want to avoid what happened last winter and the coal trade want to avoid it, too. Those responsible for the distribution of coal have found themselves very much handicapped. They have had their lorries requisitioned and their men have been subject to military service. We of the Mines Department have helped them to retain their men for the purpose of stocking coal. An extension was secured in the case of those to be called up in July, in August there was no calling up, and now there is a further extension for September and October. After October, when, as we assume, there will be large quantities of house coal in stock, we shall want to make sure that the organisation for delivery is capable of achieving its task.

Miss Ward: May I ask a straight question? It is the fact, is it not, that the scheme which is being negotiated with various interests concerned is not in detail the same scheme as was originally proposed by the distributors?

Mr. Grenfell: Certainly not. There have been negotiations—

Miss Ward: That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. Grenfell: —and negotiations always result in amendments and in compromise. There has been an interchange of opinion, and there have been amendments, and I believe the scheme will accomplish what needs to be done. Let me give an example of what has been done in my own part of the country. In the case of men who have had to leave their businesses, being unable to get further postponement of military service, their businesses are being taken over by their neighbours. Their registered customers are transferred to the lists of other distributors, who will carry on the distribution, carry on the "round" of the absent soldier, and when he returns his round will be handed back to him. That is the kind of rationalisation which is being done by agreement. If efficient distribution can be achieved by voluntary means, all well and good; but we in the Mines Department shall take the power to ourselves to see that coal is distributed to those in the country who need it. That is the whole purpose of Part 2 of the agreement, and I need not say anything more. I am sure that when the agreement comes to be promulgated the owners, the coal merchants and the public will feel that they have benefited from the agreement finally reached.
Next I would say a word about the pits themselves. We should remember that 750,000 men still work in the pits, and that about 600,000 of them work underground, under conditions always of great danger and great discomfort. I am very much concerned to see that we maintain the system of inspection and supervision. I have to report that we shall be appointing more inspectors to see that the work of inspection does not suffer, and an agreement to carry out workmen's inspections has been approved by the Department since the war began. There are measures of supervision which I think will result in benefit. I am very much con-

cerned to make sure that the essential conditions for safety shall not suffer. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, in the mines more than anywhere else. One of the essential conditions is that there shall be a system of ventilation which not only satisfies the tests of measurements but is adequate to dilute any gas and thus remove danger. I have had reports of two explosions since I entered office, and I am disturbed at those reports. They have been printed, but we shall not discuss them until they have been circulated. We are not quite happy over the reports upon those explosions. I will say no more than that now.
Then there is another aspect of safety with which I am concerned. We have had an increase in the number of multiple accidents, of falls of roof and sides, in which more than one man is killed. It has been suggested in some quarters that the immature timber grown at home which is now being supplied is not as suitable as the timber we formerly obtained from abroad. We have a sufficient supply of timber, I am glad to say, but we are using fairly substantial quantities of home-grown timber, necessarily, and we shall have to keep a close watch to see that the safety of the men is not impaired by the use of this timber.
On the subject of research, we are concentrating our efforts upon many aspects of it. There are new conditions of mining, there are new facts to be investigated. For some time we have been pursuing investigations into silicosis, nystagmus and other diseases, and I am happy to say that after a long inquiry we expect shortly to receive a report on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has been a party to that inquiry and knows about it in far greater detail than I do. I hope that we shall derive much benefit from the investigation into these very elusive, difficult and insidious evils in the mining life of this country.
I would say one final word in praise of my own Department. Lord Portal, who came there to do important work, has gone to join some other Department. I have worked happily with him and with the other officials of the Department—and I hope we have worked efficiently. My last word of tribute is to the men of all ranks in the industry. They are performing a job of work under conditions which have been made much more difficult by


the circumstances of the war. The miners in Kent, and the miners in areas elsewhere which have been attacked day and night, like Durham and South Wales, are living up to the traditions of a bold people, honest and hard working at all times, and we ought to be proud of the way in which they have responded to the country's need.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Can the Minister say what his Department is doing with a view to getting coal used as an alternative fuel for road transport?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend knows that it is a question of suitable fuel, and knows also that it is a question of obtaining sufficient steel to make the producers. In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) about two months ago, on the question of producer-gas lorries, I said that we regarded 2,000 motor lorries as being the limit for which we could get the materials. I think we can now put the figure higher than that. Lord Ridley's Committee has made a most valuable report on the subject. It is worthy of special attention, worthy of a Debate by itself in the House, and I am hopeful that we shall get good results from it and that a far greater number of these vehicles may be seen on the roads.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) upon his appointment to this Department, and upon the way in which he has approached what has become an extraordinarily difficult task. I do not suppose there is another Department which has found its task so completely changed over in so short a time as the Department of the Secretary for Mines. When he came to his post on the formation of the new Government he was confronted with an entirely different problem from the one which now faces him. It was not only the problem of mobilising the resources of the country for our continuously-expanding industry; he had also to budget for supplies of coal for those who at that time were our Allies and those whom we had counted upon to be our Allies to the end of the war. Then all the transformation in Europe took place. That has had its repercussion upon almost every phase of our lives, and is a con-

sideration to be taken into account in almost all decisions the Government have to make. All Europe is now—and we hope it is going to be a short now—under the domination of the Nazis, and among other consequences of that fact is the position in which the coal trade now finds itself. An hon. Friend here put the position in very simple figures, and I will repeat them. What the change means is that whereas last June, before the collapse of France, before the change in Europe, we had to budget for an additional export of 21,000,000 tons of coal to the Continent of Europe, that coal cannot now go there and that has changed the outlook in many coalfields.
I shall make only a short speech this evening, because I know that the House wants to get home in present circumstances, but I should like to make two or three suggestions. First, I would urge upon my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines not to allow himself to be rushed into making quick decisions to contract this industry at this time. An hon. Member has put the position thus: Markets have been lost, 2,000,000 tons less of coal per month which we had budgeted for to go to Europe is not needed now, collieries are closing down, there is short time working, the miners are idle. There is the kind of suggestion that at once something ought to be done to contract the industry, to bring it down to the level of the markets which are available at this moment. For several reasons I hope we shall be very careful before taking any action on those lines. The Minister has spoken of the personnel of the mining industry. It is a trained personnel, a skilled personnel, and it is in the best interests of the country to keep that personnel in the industry as long as possible. In many ways I would urge that, taking the long view, it would perhaps pay the State better to keep the miners idle, paying them full wages, and have them available at the end of three months, than to let them drift into another industry from which we could not get them back.
I say that for two reasons. One of them I do not elaborate in any great detail, because we do not want to speak about it in great detail. No one in this House would like to give a guarantee that the whole of the British coalfield will be available for work during the


whole of this conflict. No one would care to give that undertaking. We have to take into account the possibilities of the fortunes, or the misfortunes, of war. In saying that we are not talking defeatism, but facing the position; and if invasion comes we know that we are going to beat it back and not only beat it back but fight on to carry the war elsewhere. But if by the accident of war a part of the British coalfield is cut off, is it not desirable that we shall have in reserve other parts of the coalfield to take the place immediately of the part which is lost? For that first reason I want to urge my hon. Friend, though I do not think any urging is necessary, that there would be very great danger indeed in closing down too much of the mining industry and losing the personnel.
Further, there is a danger in losing not only the personnel but the pits. Here I would urge this consideration upon my hon. Friend. The mines are still privately owned, but in these days private interest must give place to public need, or we shall lose the war. The public need must come first. Many of the owners are facing this problem—let me say it without being controversial—in the traditional private-ownership way. If the demand for the coal is cut down by 10 per cent. they look around for the pit which they think it is best for them to close. Let us suppose that South Wales is faced with the problem of contracting the industry by 10 per cent. There are two ways in which that can be done. One way may be the best for the owners but may be the worst for the nation. One way would be to close 10 per cent. of the pits. The other way is to spread that 10 per cent. reduction over all the pits, keeping them all in production.
My hon. Friend knows very well, and no one better than he, with his wide experience and technical knowledge of the industry, that closing a pit and re-opening it shortly afterwards is very unwise. He knows that it may take three months after the re-opening of the pit to get it ready for production. It is essential, at a time like this, that the personnel should be kept intact and the pits kept open. I urge my hon. Friend to keep this matter in mind. He knows that there is an aspect of it which closely concerns my own constituency and a part of the coal-

field with which I have been familiar for almost all my life. A number of pits are threatened with closing, and, whether that may or may not be in the interests of the private owners, I say that it is not in the national interest that the pits should be closed now. I urge that the problem shall be considered in the way I suggest. As far as possible, keep the personnel, because it may be required later, and may be vitally necessary for this nation in its great effort.
I am well aware of all the difficulties which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, and particularly about coal being required for certain processes. I know that in recent years there has been a large growth in the selling of coal by calorific value and chemical composition. People come to the industry and say that they want coal which has a certain analysis. By mixing coals together, new qualities have been created. I therefore urge that this also should be taken into account. I do not regard the problem of the differences in quality between different kinds of coal as presenting insuperable difficulties. As a matter of fact, I believe that, in many ways, the young technicians who are coming into the industry are those to whom the industry must look for its future. If they were given a pool, consisting of all the coal in the country, so that they might combine coals to obtain qualities which are desired, it would be very good for the industry and, in the long run, for the nation. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not to accept too readily the arguments against the sharing of markets, and to look further at the question.
I have previously pointed out in this House that the export districts of the mining industry have for some time been in a terrible plight. They have had to carry the burden of the after-war settlement of Europe, and of the slumps of 1921–22 and 1931. They have also carried the burden of the export trade. Now they have to carry the new burden of the misfortunes of war. We are entitled to say to the Government and to the nation that the men concerned ought not to be allowed to suffer and to carry burdens for which they are not responsible. I hope that the Government will look at every possible avenue and endeavour to lift this burden from the export trade. They should share the


trade with the districts, and work out some scheme by which the inland markets are brought in to assist the exporting districts so that the burdens may be evened out and not again fall entirely upon Durham and South Wales, which are the two main exporting districts.
The best solution would be to find other markets, in which case my hon. Friend would then be faced with the problem we had last June of attracting men back into the industry and arranging for transport. I am not suggesting that the problem is easy, or that it is possible to find outside Europe new markets for all the 21,000,000 tons of coal that we had budgeted to send to Europe, but I urge that there are markets outside Europe. I am not satisfied that every effort that could be made is being made to exploit those new markets. I note from the trade columns of a South Wales paper that a United States trade commission, associated with their Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, has issued a statement showing the total export of coal from the United States to certain countries, including Canada, Central America, South America, Europe and other destinations. The totals were given, for example, for January and May of 1939, and for the corresponding months of 1940. The figure for January, 1939, showed that the United States exported about 2,734,000 tons of coal. In the corresponding period, this year, the exports had risen to 6,200,000. In other words, the American exports of coal nearly trebled between January, 1939, and January, 1940. It is obvious that America is getting the bulk of the export trade that is available.
I am not suggesting, at this stage and in these circumstances, especially after the speech to which we listened to-day and the agreement that has just been signed with America, that we can enter into a controversy with that country on matters of the kind to which I refer, but I would like to make a suggestion. If we can come to an agreement for the exchange of destroyers for bases, is it not possible for us to open conversations in order to find a way in which America and ourselves can share the South American market for coal?

Mr. Gallecher: That is a different story.

Mr. Griffiths: It may be a different story, but I see no reason why it should not be possible, and I hope that my suggestion may be carried out. I am told that the Ministry of Shipping are not too helpful to the coal export trade just now. I know that the Ministry have their difficulties and problems, but the problems of coal export are very important. No one who listened to the Budget Debates and who has seen the trade returns of our exports will need to be reminded that, in the last couple of months, our export trade has declined by 30 per cent. That is important to a nation such as our own, which has depended for much of its economic life upon the export trade and which has to buy so much of its food and raw materials from every corner of the world. We must either pay for these things by our exports or in very much worse ways, and it is essential that every Department should use the best efforts to help the coal export districts.
I do not think that these problems can be left entirely to the export districts themselves or to the industry. The Government must take a hand in the matter. I hope that the Government realise thoroughly that, in doing so, they would not only be helping the industry and the men concerned, but would be doing a great service to this nation, in recovering the export trade upon which our national solvency depends. I hope that the few suggestions I have made will be considered by my hon. Friend. I do not want to see this industry thrown out now. He knows the important part which it may have to play again very shortly, both in the internal economy of this country and in its export markets. Are we to assume that Europe will for all time remain as it is at the present stage of this conflict? Suppose that we one day release France, as I have no doubt we shall, from the grip of Hitler; it means that France will be a coal market once again. When Europe has once again become free, we can supply Europe with the coal it wants. For all these reasons I want to keep the industry as intact as possible, both in personnel and pits, because I want it to be able to take full advantage of opportunities when they come. In the meantime, I urge the Government that they owe it to the men in the industry to see that burdens are equally shared among all in the industry.
I want to say just a word about the problem of accidents, to which a reference was made by the Minister. I know how hard he has worked upon that problem. There are many aspects of the problem, associated with many parts of this country, that are very disturbing, and the present position leaves much to be desired in the way of safety. We shall look with great confidence indeed to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines for some real and practical contributions towards a solution of the problem. I thank him for the information that the report upon silicosis will be available very shortly. I hope it will be possible for us to arrange to discuss these matters before long. We know that the men in the pits are doing their best under difficulties. The men in my district of South Wales went to the pits this morning at six o'clock, after an air-raid warning which had lasted from 9·30 last night to 4·51 this morning. I know some people may say: "Why don't they sleep?" but if a father has in the house little children for whom he is responsible, he believes it is his duty to remain alert during an air-raid, in case of danger. I am concerned about the effect of these things upon the accident rate, because, in such circumstances, men in the pit expose themselves to much more danger.
I look forward to discussing these problems on another occasion, but today's Debate will have been very useful in concentrating the attention of the House and of the country upon the immediate problems of the industry. The point which I end by making is that, in these difficult times, it is essential that the mining industry shall be kept as intact as possible, because the time will very soon come when it will have a very important part to play.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister for Mines paid a high tribute to the miners of this country for their courage, endurance and loyalty, but I am afraid that that tribute will fall with a hollow sound upon the ears of some of the miners and their wives, because the Minister did not draw attention to the fact that those qualities applied to the most dangerous occupation in the country, and the miners are actually the poorest paid workers in the country.

The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) rightly said that these men should be retained in this industry, which is the basic industry of this country, and without which there could be no other industry and no prosperity for any section of the community. Springing up in various parts of the country are different kinds of Government undertakings in which all kinds of work are subcontracted out to various contractors. These contractors are employing additional men. They are paying them not only for their ordinary day-time work but overtime. Attention has been drawn in this House to the fact that many men working in Government employment are making good wages, but those who draw attention to this fact do not mention overtime which goes to make up the wages. The Minister for Mines will understand that it is easier to do 80 hours on a surface job, such as is associated with some of this contracting work, than to do 40 hours' work underground.

Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Gentleman was not present when this point was referred to in passing. We were not discussing the comparative wages paid. I said that it was still better for men engaged in the mining industry, not only on short time but on ordinary time, to leave if they wished and to go to a better paid job.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry if I missed some of the Minister's speech in consequence of the schedule being interrupted to-day and because some of my engagements took up extra time. That which the hon. Member for Llanelly fears is actually taking place, because some of the most active young lads are moving away into other jobs which can only be considered as temporary employment. They may be a month, two months or more in those jobs, but actually it is temporary employment, and it is taking them away from this important industry. One of the first problems in connection with the mining industry is to ensure an adequate livelihood for the miner, his wife and his children.

Mr. Grenfell: And better conditions.

Mr. Gallacher: And better conditions. This brings me to the question of the reports in connection with explosions. We are not discussing this question to-day, but in passing I would like to say something in connection with it. I feel that one


side of the mining industry where there must be a rapid extension and change is in connection with workmen's inspectors. It is not possible to continue with the system of workmen's inspectors being maintained by collections at the pits or by the voluntary efforts of the trade unions, as has been the case up to now. It is essential that the present democratic electoral method of appointing workmen's inspectors should continue, but the Government should give them far greater powers, and they should receive payment from Government sources. I mention this point in passing because I hope that later on there will be a discussion on these reports. As the hon. Member for Llanelly says, every report makes disturbing reading, and one is always faced with the fact that if one method or another had been adopted, the explosions and the terrible calamities arising could have been averted. Therefore, it will be necessary to have such a discussion.
The hon. Member for Llanelly drew attention to the fact that there has been a big jump, to the extent of almost three times the amount, in the export of coal from America to the other countries in the American continent during the past year. It would be very nice if it was possible for the export industry in this country to obtain a better footing over there, but I have a feeling, now that America has secured an important strategical position in the North Atlantic and the West Indies, that we shall see this process of the great increase in American coal exports going up, not down. One step that we should take in the export business is to take measures to ensure that

everybody in this country has an abundance of coal this winter. It would be a good thing if we could see to it that the poorest of families are supplied with an abundance of anthracite coal. Of course, it would be difficult to start it going, but once it gets going, it gives a better fire and a better heat.

Mr. J. Griffiths: And no smoke.

Mr. Gallacher: And no smoke. Arising out of the various factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Llanelly, we are now in a situation in which there is a tendency towards a slump in the mining industry. But there is a sufficient market in this country if everybody could get the amount of coal he required during the coming winter. There is a sufficient market in this country, not from the point of view of people being able to pay for the coal but from the point of view of people being able to use it, to compensate for the loss of markets as a result of events which have taken place on the other side of the continent. There should be no question of taking from the coal industry these men whom the Minister has eulogised. Every effort should be made to ensure that every available ounce of coal is burned this winter by the people in this country, thereby ensuring that the men are kept in employment.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Seven o'Clock until Tuesday, 17th September, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.